The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

A Stunning Week For American Liberties

By

It has been a rather incredible week.  In a real “two fer”, the election of Republican Scott Brown to represent the state of Massachusetts as a United States Senator has sent both the ghost of Ded Ted and the unholy trinity’s health care “reform” back down to the hell hole from which they rose.  And then the Supreme Court, voting on straight progressive vs. conservative ideological lines, struck down most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act as unconstitutional.

All of which finds the left staring bug-eyed and slack-jawed.

As the shock wears off, in their anger at being told that their attempts to create a socialist dictatorship out of the Republic of the United States is now seen clearly for what it is and that the American people want no part of it, the spin begins.  His Transparency, in particular, is being, well, rather more transparent.  And it’s not comforting.  Attempting to capitalize on what is being labeled “populist” anger, he went on the stump this week and has started talking “tough”.  But, frankly, it sounds more like stupid to me.  He told George Stephanopoulos:

“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.   People are angry, and they’re frustrated.  Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
 
Yo, put on some clothes, there, Emperor.  This time it really is all about you.  Those last “eight years” you continue to casually toss around as your sole reason d’etre now includes the first year of what sensible Americans have been praying is your own lame-duck presidency.  What happened in Massachusetts is, indeed, the sensible reaction of a free people to your lies and your ideology.  We were angry at the growing deficits and intrusions of the federal government in 2008 and we’re angry at the Obama-led Democrats’ neck-break race to socialism that continues to increase them now.
 
But no matter.  Obama got himself all wee-wee’d up and told a crowd in Elyria, Ohio (where unemployment is now at 10.9 percent — up from 10.6 last month):

“Now, we’ve gotten pretty far down the road, but I have to admit, we’ve run into a bit of a buzz saw along the way….”

“…I am not going to watch more people get crushed by costs, or denied the care they need by insurance company bureaucrats, or partisan politics, or special interest power in Washington.”

Astute observers will note that referring to a majority of the citizenry at large as a “buzz saw” when they disagree with him shows again this inexperienced bubble boy hasn’t a clue or, more likely based on other statements, just doesn’t care about the checks and balances foundation of government in this country that secures the power in the hands of the people.  And it is not only my jaded eyes that turn up at the corners from the humor of the blatant hypocrisy contained in his statements.  What we saw, particularly exposed during the month of December, made it quite clear that the Chicago machine of “partisan politics” and the “special interest power in Washington” was gunning at full throttle to create both the House and Senate versions of health care “reform”.  (Corn husk, anyone?)
 
This fighting stance continued as the ramifications of the Supreme Court decision on the upcoming 2010 Congressional mid-term elections quickly began to sink in.
 
 
 
Tip what?  Drown out what?  Certainly Massachusetts just proved the progressive liberal’s need to stifle free speech on behalf of those chosen to be their pet victim de jeur is not only wrong, but unnecessary.  Martha (“Curling Iron”) Coakley flew from Massachusetts to Washington, D.C. to attend a fundraiser for her Senate campaign, and both hosts and attendees included lobbyists for “Big Pharma” and the health care industry.  Monies raised were used for negative attack ads against Scott Brown, but we all know what happened next.  It didn’t work.  The American people knew what was at stake and threw their nickels and dimes at Scott Brown; and the good people of Massachusetts, equally tired of Washington’s special interests, raised their collective middle fingers and gave the Democrats and their lobbyists and their unions a loud and clear salute by sending Brown to Washington to kill the health care Senate bill.
 
It may be too difficult a concept for affirmatively-graduated Ivy League progressives, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that freedom of speech is our most powerful means of controlling special interests and bringing hidden agendas to light.  So what if corporations or the unions now no longer need a middle man (in the form of PACs) to donate to a candidate or a cause?  The Supreme Court did not strike down disclosure and therefore any business that decides to spend their profits on campaigns that go against America’s liberties or against Her best interests will soon find their profits gone MIA as the people cast their votes not only at the ballot box but with their dollars.  Those companies who decide to try and hide behind PACs will continue to be outed by an newly-awakened citizenry who is sick and tired of lies, no matter what the source.  Where the agenda of unions goes against America’s sensibilities, they will lose even more members than they have to date.  Frankly, those who would want to pursue campaign reform in light of this ruling would do better to simply put more transparency into the whole process. 
 
But in a free market economy, advertising can be a form of corporate suicide and where campaign financing is concerned the left believes that this a bad thing.  What they can’t accept, because it threatens their power, is that real equality means the freedom to fail as well as the freedom to succeed.  It is not up to the government to selectively and partisanly choose who may speak and when.  At least it is not up to the government in these United States.  It is the kind of activity belongs in despot regimes like Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran.  That the Obama administration and its progressive liberal supporters are already seeing how to write new laws to corral free speech yet again is yet more straightforward evidence they do not accept the Constitution as it was written and sets the stage for the 2010 mid-term elections to be a bloodbath, ending with Democrats picking up their teeth with the stubs of their elbows.
 

The 1st Amendment: The Freedom Of Speech

By

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This is the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  First in the series and number one for a reason.  The Founding Fathers saw “the freedom of speech” as a most basic of human rights, one that exists through simple, natural law (because it is “…endowed by their Creator….”)  They refer to it as an “inalienable” right, meaning it is a right that cannot be alienated (made hostile, unfriendly, or indifferent when there was previously an attachment; or cause to be withdrawn or diverted); it is not something that can be surrendered or transferred.

This fundamental inability of the government to alienate, surrender, or to transfer the people’s right to the freedom of speech is important.  They do not give to you, and they can’t take it away.  No matter what anyone says or what anyone tries to do, you always, now and forever, have the right to make your thoughts heard.

The current “protests” coming from the far-left that anyone who is now voicing their disagreement with their spin or with their actions (or lack thereof) is somehow doing wrong is actually, in itself, not only incorrect but a dangerous mindset.  It’s not merely a matter of what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, this reaches even beyond the confines of what most people commonly call “fairness”.  It is that at the most basic and fundamental level, simply because of their existence, anyone in this country has the right to voice their opinion. 

This holds true even and – as hard as this is to swallow for those who embrace the ideology of material entitlement – especially if the way something is expressed is not to the listener’s liking.

Judge Andrew Napolitano explains it this way:

“Because speech can startle and offend, as well as enlighten and illuminate, the courts have held that it requires breathing room.  Stated differently, no one in the government – any government – may impose a burden on the exercise of speech. That means that the government may not require a license, demand permission, or intimidate any speakers. It may not punish speech, no matter what the speech asks.”

Does this mean you should run around screaming and yelling like a moron?  Personally, I don’t think you should.  But if you choose to do so, it isn’t against the law.  Unless you are doing something like yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater and thereby overtly and deliberately endangering the lives of others, you have the right to make an ass out of yourself any time you like.  The consequences of such behavior fall under the jurisdiction of societal mores – meaning, if you run around making stupid or lying statements or are always rude when you speak, don’t be surprised if you don’t have many (if any) friends and people go out of their way to avoid you. 

But while regular citizens may choose to ignore your blatherings, the government does not have the power to shut you up.  No matter what means you use to get your message across, no matter how much they may dislike what you have to say, they may not interfere with your expressing it.

The Obama administration’s latest “snitch” program is in violation of the 1st Amendment.  By encouraging citizens to do little more than spy on one another, even if they cloak their request in the guise of trying to counter “misinformation” about health care reform, they have not simply overstepped their Constitutional authority, they have crossed the line into a place where no such authority even exists.  The laws governing the federal archival of all communication with the executive branch require that they keep the names, e-mail addresses, and correspondence sent to them and this, then, through this latest request for “help”, creates an opportunity for the federal government to create a database of “dissidents”.  There is precedent for such activity and while there are those in the White House who would like you to remain ignorant, the outcome came down firmly on the side of the American people:

When the Nixon administration created the “Cointelpro” and”Houston” plans in the 1970s, it used undercover FBI, CIA, and civilian-garbed military to photograph and record the faces and voices of anti-war protestors. Nixon claimed that he needed the records of this for national security purposes. He argued to David Frost, after he had resigned the Presidency, that in case of domestic upheaval, his government would know who to arrest.

 The Supreme Court rejected the idea that the First Amendment permits the government to make and keep a record of the faces and voices and ideas of its domestic political opponents. The Court called this “chilling” the right to speak freely; in other words, denying it the breathing room that free speech requires. The whole purpose of the First Amendment, the Court wrote, is to encourage – not discourage – open, broad, robust political debate, and any inhibition, real or threatened, that comes from the government is unconstitutional.

In direct response to Cointelpro and Houston, Congress enacted the Privacy Act. Among many other protections, it specifically prohibits the President or anyone in his name from making or keeping records of any persons’ use of speech. The constitutional rule is “All innocuous speech is absolutely protected. And all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to address the same matter.”

Continue to speak out, America.  For the ability to dissent is, truly, American and patriotic.  And by doing so, freedom rings.

1st Amendment Attack: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act HR 1966

By

Who is Megan Meier and why do we need yet another law on the books to help prosecute a bully?

Megan Meier was the 13-year old who killed herself after an online “relationship” via Facebook went south.  She never knew that the relationship wasn’t with an “attractive” boy, but with a friend’s mother and others who had set out to deliberately humiliate her.  That friend’s mother, one Lori Drew, was indicted by a federal grand jury a year ago on three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress, and one count of criminal conspiracy.  She was found guilty on three lesser charges (reduced from felonies to misdemeanors by the jury) late last November. (The jury was deadlocked on the fourth felony charge of criminal conspiracy.)

One thing that often goes unmentioned is that Megan Meier had a long history of mental illness.  She had been treated by a psychiatrist since the 3rd grade and took a variety of medications, including antidepressants, Ritalin, and antipsychotics.  Megan wasn’t exactly your typical teenager and while my heart breaks for her and her family, in my opinion she was not one who should have been allowed to roam virtual society’s wilderness unsupervised, nor one with whom “faceless” relationships should have been encouraged.

But in yet another example of expecting everyone except those actually responsible to take responsibility, H. R. 1966 was introduced in the House last month.  Playing on our sympathies by calling it the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act”, sponsor Linda Sanches (D-CA) and her cohorts feel that we need to legislate morality by spelling out the need to go after anyone with the “intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior”.  The “electronic means” include “email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.”  The punishment is a fine and/or up to 2 years in prison.

Why?  According to H.R. 1966:

(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.

(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.

(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.

(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.

(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.

(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.

The internet has become a fact of life.  A recent fact of life.  But what is also a fact of life yet by no means recent is that it is a parent’s responsibility to protect their children.  No responsible parent would drop their child off in a strange city and leave them to wander around at will – alone – yet every day parents let their children sit in front of a computer and wander the vast wastelands of the internet, allow them to join sites like Facebook and other social networking sites, and find it amusing when they make what are little more than imaginary friends.  I’ve personally been online a long time and have seen countless adults  scammed by pathetic losers who find their social courage in anonymity.  Children have far less savvy and have far thinner skins to protect them from idiots.  But they are supposed to have their parents to protect them.  A job which isn’t particularly difficult when going onto the internet is a voluntary activity and that protection is as simple as turning the “ON/OFF” switch to the “OFF” position.

There are already laws on the books by which those who prey on others, both online and off, may be prosecuted.  We don’t need more and we certainly don’t need one that aims at such a broad target for nowhere is it specified that its protections are intended to cover solely those under the age of 18.  Meaning that anyone with a differing opinion may be cited using this legislation, which should be of particularly concern to people who blog.

“First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”  (Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 2002)

A Letter To The Deliberately Clueless

By

Dear Mr. President,

I’m “waving my tea bag around” with both anger and with  pride because I, along with over a million other Americans willing to do the same, stand for something.  And that something is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States of America.

I’m “waving my tea bag around” because the principles upon which this country was built are what allowed you, Mr. President, and your wife to attend college.  In fact, it was MY money you borrowed and were given in grants as a result of my working hard and paying my taxes.  And it was then my money again that you used to pay me back because just who do you think was helping to pay your salary when you were supposed to be representing the state of Illinois in the Senate those 2 years you spent on the campaign trail?  And who do you think was the real source of those federal tax dollars used by those “community organizing” groups who paid you to hone the skills necessary to subvert the laws of this land?

I’m “waving my tea bag around” because despite their great publicity, you apparently could not be bothered to notice that an enormous outcry against yours and Congress’ self-serving, spendthrift ways was taking place on April 15th.  Even though it is your job to know what is happening in this country.

Which tells me that I wasted my money sending you to college.

I’m “waving my tea bag around” because just like the vitriolic drool running down the chins and spilling over onto the keyboards of your lapdog mainstream media reporters, you have the audacity to use their very same tactics when forced to acknowledge there is a great and growing groundswell against your ideologies and attempts to manifest them against the will of at least half of the American people.

I’m “waving my tea bag around” because when I say the pledge of allegiance, I am able to recite it clearly.  Unlike you, who were somehow unable to properly voice your oath of office in January; and it is irrelevant whether that was because the words were not given to you on a teleprompter or because you choked over having to actually say them out loud and really mean them after 20 years of listening to your chosen preacher tell you “God DAMN America”.  In that moment, you told those who have eyes to see exactly where you stand and it is NOT on the side of America.

I’m “waving my tea bag around” because the 1st Amendment’s the right to free speech still lives despite your efforts to silence anyone who disagrees with you, and I find it deplorable that a high school teacher would bully a student who chooses to read news at an outlet like Foxnews.com instead of what is, in their opinion, a more “acceptable” one.

I’m “waving my tea bag around” because I do NOT apologize for the actions taken by your predecessors to keep this country safe.  Nor will I apologize for their actions and the trillions of hard-earned citizen tax dollars sent by this “arrogent” society to other countries to help alleviate their poverty and help them create a similar republican form of government.

I’m “waving my tea bag around” because I will not bow down to anyone.  Not to you, and especially not to those who harbor or outright encourage people doing everything possible to wipe us off the face of the Earth.

I’m “waving my tea bag around” because your rights end where mine begin.  I pledged my allegiance to this country.  You, on the other hand, get only the respect due your office.  Anything further must be earned but during your first 100 days you have done nothing towards that end.

When all is said and done, I’m “waving my tea bag around” because I’m ashamed that there are people who will judge us by your hypocritical actions and because for the first time in my life I no longer feel safe in my own country.  The heart and soul that is America is something good and honorable.  It is not childish, petulant, lying, selfish, or blatantly stupid.  It doesn’t waffle or dissemble.

I’m “waving my tea bag around” because you owe the American people an apology.  If not your resignation.